ETTW Q&A

In this series, Matt will answer some frequently asked questions about the War on Terror. This list will be updated periodically.

The Terror Industrial Complex and YOU

1. What is the “war on terror”?

A: The ongoing campaign by the United States and some of its allies to counter international terrorism. (1) The War on Terror was declared on September 20, 2001 by George W. Bush, it quote “begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” (2) In short, an endless war campaign to defeat terrorists, with the short-shortsightedness of causing a rise in terrorism as a consequence of having no declared end with categorized terrorist entities.

A: “(1) Someone who is engaged in hostilities against the United States or its allies – or who materially supports hostilities against the United States or its allies – without being a member of a regular armed force of another country. (2) Someone declared an unlawful enemy combatant by the Combatant Status Review Tribunal. Currently defined by federal law in the Military Commissions Act of 2006. (1)

“Hostilities” and “material support” are vague paramaters for defining a designated enemy. “Immigrants arrested in the United States may be held indefinitely on suspicion of terrorism and may NOT challenge their imprisonment in civilian courts.” (2)

3. What role did Afghanistan have with 9/11?

A: Nothing substantial. Mullah Omar pleaded to hold Osama bin Laden to trial and execution if the U.S. government would give the Taliban evidence of his responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Bush rejected this offer. (1) The Taliban and Al Qaeda haven’t sustained a solid historical alliance, Bin Laden irrirated Mullah Omar and one year (late 2008) the Taliban reportedly disowned Al Qaeda altogether. (2)

Indicating a shaky relationship at best. The implication being, the present rulers of Afghanistan during 2001 (the Taliban) had no active role in securing the strategem of the 9/11 attacks.

A: The claims of an Iraq-Bin Laden connection were fabricated by a tortured prisoner named Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi. (1) The 9/11 commission itself said, quote, “We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaida cooperated on attacks against the United States.” (2) “The notion that Islamist terrorism is really the U.S. government’s target is contradicted by the targets of the Bush administration’s Middle East policy. Why, if the enemy is Islamist terrorism, did the administration invest so much energy against Iraq, Syria, and the PLO? Both Syria’s president, Bashir Assad, and the late chairman of the PLO, Yasser Arafat, were implacable opponents of the Muslim Brotherhood, but they found themselves incongruously to the list of Al Qaeda’s allies. By attacking Iraq, the Bush administration also found an inappropriate target. Since coming to power in 1968, Saddam Hussein was a determined enemy of the Islamists, from Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini to terrorist Shiite groups to Al Qaeda itself. In invading Iraq, President Bush made common cause with the Islamic right: before, during, and after the invasion, the United States supported the Iraqi National Congress exile coalition, in which two Shiite fundamentalist parties, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), and the Islamic Call (Al-Dawa), played prominent roles. Both worked closesly with Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.” (3) “Bush, consciously and with deliberation, encouraged Iraq’s Ialmists to reach for power. American forces and the CIA brought an ayatollah from London to Najaf, Iraq, and forged a pragmatic alliance with another ayatollah, Ali al-Sistani, an Iranian cleric who became the kingmaker in Iraq after the war. The United States worked with a radical Iraqi cleric, Abdel-Aziz al-Hakim, who commanded the 20,000-strong paramilitary Badr Brigade, a force that was armed and trained by Iran. And it promoted a terrorist group called the Islamic Call, or Al Dawa, a group that over its forty-year history had conducted bombings, assassinations, and other violent attacks, including an attack against the American embassy in Kuwait in the early 1980s.” (4)

A: The expansion of the military industrial complex of the 21st century. The TIC includes: Covert support of terrorists under the banner of “irregular” or “unconventional” warfare [1], geopolitical fracturing of regions or nation-states [2], using terrorism to force a response by categorized terrorist groups (P2OG) [3], strategic use of making civilians fear Americans more than designated terrorists [4], funding terrorist groups [5], supporting terrorists against enemy states [6], banking establishments funding terrorists [7], FBI entrapment encouraging terrorism. [8] The U.S. government categorizes a “Universal Adversary” in the War on Terror composed of: Foreign Islamic terrorists, domestically radical groups (anti-war, civil rights), state-sponsored adversaries (rogue states, unstable nations), disgruntled employees (labor/union activists). [9] The HSC (Homeland Security Council) 2004 “Planning Scenarios” document [10] envisions turning the War on Terror inwards against Americans via a martial law/police state apparatus. The TOPOFF exercises resemble preparation for future real life incidents, or false flags by the U.S. government against American citizens. To quote Eric May, former Army intelligence officer: “The easiest way to carry out a false flag attack is by setting up a military exercise that simulates THE VERY ATTACK YOU WANT TO CARRY OUT.” [11] As examined in this Q&A series, the U.S. government hypocritically supports terrorist groups (such as the UA’s foreign Islamists) while simultaneously declaring a war to supposedly stop terrorism. This is a strategic deception against the American public and opinions in the mindset of others throughout the world.

6. Does the U.S. government support terrorist groups, and if so, who and against what countries?

A: There are at least three well-known examples of Washington backing terrorists against foreign governments, Syria, Iran and Iraq. The MEK and Jundullah have reportedly worked in liaison with Israel and the CIA to attack Iran. [1,2] And Washington has also supported Al Qaeda in Iraq-Syria against the Syrian government. [3] Washington has supported Islamic militants against the secularist rule of the previously toppled Saddam Hussein, who the CIA had previously supported. [4,5] Washington has backed NLA/KLA terrorists against Macedonia, while simultaneously manipulating Macedonian ARM forces in “counter-terrorism.” [6] It’s speculated by Chossudovsky that the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP) has been used as a proxy terrorist forces against China during the 08′ Olympics, with the collaborative work of ISI (Pakistani intelligence) and CIA setting up an inland “beachead” of sorts to assist in the balkanization and independence of the Xinjiang/Turkistan province towards Pakistan and away from China. [7] Washington also backed Chechen terrorists in an expansion of the CIA’s Operation Cyclone from Afghanistan, with the assistance of Saudi Arabia. Excerpt: “With regard to Chechnya, the main rebel leaders Shamil Basayev and Al Khattab were trained and indoctrinated in CIA sponsored camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (..) Following his training and indoctrination stint, Basayev was assigned to lead the assault against Russian federal troops in the first Chechen war in 1995. His organization had also developed extensive links to criminal syndicates in Moscow as well as ties to Albanian organized crime and the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). (..) During his training in Afghanistan, Shamil Basayev linked up with Saudi born veteran Mujahideen Commander “Al Khattab” who had fought as a volunteer in Afghanistan. Barely a few months after Basayev’s return to Grozny, Khattab was invited (early 1995) to set up an army base in Chechnya for the training of Mujaheddin fighters. According to the BBC, Khattab’s posting to Chechnya had been ‘arranged through the Saudi-Arabian based [International] Islamic Relief Organisation, a militant religious organisation, funded by mosques and rich individuals which channeled funds into Chechnya.” [8] NATO-backed Al Qaeda assisted in the KLA’s rise to power and subsequent campaigns from Bosnia, Kosovo, Serbia, and Macedonia. Madeleine Albright supported the Al Qaeda (terrorist connected) KLA in their guerrila war for Albania. [9]

7. What foreign governments have violated individual liberty under the guise of “stopping terrorism”?

A: The Washington Post reported in 2013, that 54 countries united in the U.S. governments torture and extraordinary rendition policies of the GWOT. [1] In two extremely brutal cases of dictatorial abuses under the guise of “counter-terrorism” by U.S. allied countries, Phillipines’ Gloria Arroyo [2] and Uzbekistan’s Islam Karimov [3] both resorted to mass killing and torture of political dissidents with no substantial evidence that the accused had any serious affiliations with terrorists or terror events in their respective countries.

8. Has the War on Terror increased or decreased terrorism across the world?

A: The blog Screeching Kettle says, quote, “terrorist attacks begin to spike after the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. According to the GTI, among the five countries accounting for the highest spikes in terrorism, the US has conducted ground wars in two (Iraq and Afghanistan), a drone campaign in one (Pakistan), and airstrikes in a fourth (Syria). Libya – where the US intervened back in 2011 – also moved up nine places on the GTI scale and is now the 15th country in the world most plagued by terrorism. Time and time again, whenever the US goes somewhere to “fight terrorism”, it only ends up producing more of it.” [1] Washington’s Blog has documented that, quote, “waging war in the Middle East weakens national security and increases terrorism. Drone strikes increase terrorism. Torture creates new terrorists. The U.S. has directly been supporting Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups for the last decade. [2]

A: Igor Volsky at ThinkProgress cites a Senate Intelligence report declassified in December 3, 2014, says, quote: “At no time did the CIA’s coercive interrogation techniques lead to the collection of imminent threat intelligence, such as the hypothetical ‘ticking time bomb’ information that many believe was the justification for the use of these techniques.” [1,2]

A: Peter Moskowitz, in an Al Jazeera America article cites a New American Foundation document that, quote “the study examined records for investigations into 225 people who have been indicted, convicted or killed by the U.S. for their reported ties to Al-Qaeda and Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups like Al-Shabab after Sept. 11, 2001. The review found that the NSA’s bulk collection of Americans’ phone metadata, justified under the Patriot Act, was responsible for initiating investigations in only four of the 225 cases detailed by the New America Foundation and that none of those four prevented attacks.” [1] In summary, surveillance may assist in documenting evidence of a terrorist attack but it has done minimal to nothing in terror prevention. Here is the link to the full report. [2]

11. How free are people in countries the states has attacked in the name of “stopping terror”?

A: Freedom House reports, according to their timelines that the following key “battlefields” in the War on Terror have lacked freedom in the world and have even gotten demonstrably worse for local people in several countries: Afghanistan (2001-2014) [1], Iraq (2003-2015) [2], Pakistan (2004-2014) [3], Syria* (2007-2015) [4], Yemen (2001-2015) [5], Somalia (2002-2014) [6], Philippines (2002-2014) [7], Algeria** (2007-2014) [8], United States (2001-2014 [9]. Freedom House expresses clear unquestioning bias regarding the U.S. according to how other countries fair regarding personal freedoms, it’s disingenuous to say that America has remained consistently a “free society” since the War on Terror has begun, especially with demonstrable evidence to the contrary of curtailed freedom under the guise of “counter-terror” security measures. To cite just one strong example to the contrary, I recommend everyone read the article “How many Constitutional rights have we lost?” over at Washington’s Blog. [10] While I don’t personally withhold to the concept that freedom is bound by documents such as the U.S. Constitution or Bill of Rights, the blog provides a sufficient amount of evidence to the contrary of Freedom House’s narrative that North America has remained consistently “free” at the expense of others throughout the world, when Americans themselves can testify otherwise just how free they feel in the post-9/11 world where the War on Terror hasn’t only been used to target external threats but has been inverted against American society itself. Pew Research reported that, quote “In a poll conducted in 2011, shortly before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, 40% said that “in order to curb terrorism in this country it will be necessary for the average person to give up some civil liberties,” while 54% said it would not.” [11] Indicating a trend in opposition to the mindset that civil liberties “must be lost” to stop terrorism in the world that was prevalent immediately following the 9/11 attacks.

A: The answer to that is a personal decision of your own to make, if you wish to. Nobody is under forced obligation to serve the interests of the LUA-ETTW (Liberty Under Attack-End The Terror War) partnership, everyone may voluntarily contribute to the interests of freedom and truth alongside Shane and myself in their own ways. To answer succinctly as possible, the War on Terror to me is a violation of the Nuremberg principles [1] and against the golden rule. [2] It has endangered lives, infrastructure, and made the world a more geo-politically and religiously volatile place [*], instead of an endeavor to genuinely work towards peace on the local and global levels. If you want to “stop terror” (the claimed objective according to George W. Bush in his Sept. 20 speech) [3], seriously, it’s counter-intuitive to terrorize others and expect terrorism to spontaneously stop existing as a result. [4] American support for Israel against the well-being of Palestinians was cited for the reason regarding the motives for the 9/11 attacks, as covered by Representative Press. This is not an endorsement of anti-Semitic attacks on the Jewish people of the world, but merely a recognition of the pretext that led us into the GWOT from the start. [5]

13. Does the U.S. Government consider Americans as terrorists and America as battlefield?

A: Yes. In an excellent article by Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux from The Intercept, quote, “The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watch-list system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document. The “March 2013 Watch-listing Guidance,” a 166-page document issued last year by the National Counter-terrorism Center, spells out the government’s secret rules for putting individuals on its main terrorist database, as well as the no fly list and the selectee list, which triggers enhanced screening at airports and border crossings. The new guidelines allow individuals to be designated as representatives of terror organizations WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE they are actually connected to such organizations, and it gives a single White House official the unilateral authority to place entire “categories” of people the government is tracking onto the no fly and selectee lists. It broadens the authority of government officials to “nominate” people to the watch-lists based on what is vaguely described as “fragmentary information.” It also allows for dead people to be watch-listed.” [1] That’s just the start of their investigative journalism on this subject, and it’s quality information for an uninformed public. To name just a few things from Michael Synder’s list of 72 categories that earn you a “terrorist” label in America, I will pick a few examples: Those that talk about individual liberty, anyone that considers the State to be unnecessary/harmful/undesirable, anyone opposed to a New World Order, anyone concerned about FEMA detention, anyone frustrated with mainstream political ideology, anyone anti-globalization, anyone suspicious of centralized federal authority. [2] Indeed, America is recognized as a battlefront in the War on Terror. [3]

14. Has the Trans-Saharan counter-terrorism initiative (TSCI) stopped terror in the African Sahara?

A: In December 2005, SFGate reported that, quote, “if anything the (initiative) will generate terrorism, by which I mean resistance to the overall U.S. presence and strategy,” said Jeremy Keenan, a Sahara specialist at the University of East Anglia in Britain. Repressive governments in the region are taking advantage of the Bush administration’s “war on terror” to tap U.S. largesse and deny civil freedoms. Aside from the 2003 kidnapping issue, U.S. and Algerian authorities have failed to present “indisputable verification of a single act of alleged terrorism in the Sahara,” Keenan said. “Without the GSPC, the U.S. has no legitimacy for its presence in the region,” he said, noting that a growing American strategic dependence on African oil has led the United States to bolster its presence in the region.” [1] In another article by Keenan, in the New Internationalist, quote, “My first book on the Global War On Terror in the Sahara, The Dark Sahara (Pluto 2009), described and explained the development of this extraordinary relationship. It revealed why it was that the Bush administration and the regime in Algiers both needed a ‘little more terrorism’ in the region. The Algerians wanted more terrorism to legitimize their need for more high-tech and up-to-date weaponry. The Bush administration, meanwhile, saw the development of such terrorism as providing the justification for launching a new Saharan front in the Global War On Terror. Such a ‘second front’ would legitimize America’s increased militarization of Africa so as better to secure the continent’s natural resources, notably oil. This, in turn, was soon to lead to the creation in 2008 of a new US combat command for Africa – AFRICOM.” [2]

A: The Global Terrorism Index at VisionofHumanity.org has reported that since 2002, Somalia’s ranking has started from 3.23 (2002), 3.18 (2003), 3.11 (2004), 3.86 (2005), 4.21 (2006), 6.44 (2007), 7.10 (2008), 7.17 (2009), 7.04 (2010), 7.17 (2011), 7.24 (2012), 7.41 (2013). This includes a rise in fatalities, injuries and property damages since the War on Terror began. [1] Antifascist Calling reported in February 2010, quote, “During a January 27 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security, Under Secretary of State for Management, Patrick F. Kennedy, testified that the visa of accused bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, wasn’t revoked at the specific request of secret state agencies. Claiming that “revocation action would’ve disclosed what they were doing,” Kennedy said that allowing the alleged terrorist to keep his visa would have “helped” federal investigators take down the entire network “rather than simply knocking out one solider in that effort. A “soldier” (indicted criminal) who would have murdered 300 air passengers if the detonator concealed in his underpants hadn’t serendipitously failed to explode the device.” [2] If this isn’t convincing evidence that the DHS doesn’t care for “stopping terror” in any genuine manner, I don’t know what to tell you. Evidently, “Operation Enduring Freedom” has only endured in terror proliferation throughout the world – in perfect alignment with the Terror Industrial Complex.

A: First, FSD must be defined. Here is the definition of FSD: “the ability of U.S. forces, operating unilaterally or in combination with multinational and inter-agency partners, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the full range of military operations.” SPACOM’s “Vision for 2020” envisions FSD as containing the following three goals: Peacetime engagement, deterrence & conflict prevention, fight & win. [2] Domination is an adversarial strategem itself, ensuring hindrance to counter-terrorism objectives, unless the goal isn’t actually to “stop terror.” [3] The use of “unconventional warfare” under the guise of global dominance is an admitted use of proliferating terrorism, rather than genuinely seeking an end to international terrorism. [4] By seeking dominance over designated “enemy” or adversary nation-states and people’s, FSD does nothing for seeking world peace and everything to motivate terror attacks. I would say, definitely and conclusively, FSD has hindered means of seeking serious prevention of genuine terror threats. If anyone is serious about counter-terrorism measures, FSD is an ideological and practical failure to achieve that goal – unless of course, as mentioned above, the strategy is unconventional warfare, which motivates terrorist “actors” to play their role according to a predetermined plan by military guidelines of deception.

17. If you don’t support the government’s War on Terror, do you sympathize with terrorists?

A: Absolutely not. On a personal level, speaking for myself, I resent the state terrorism of the U.S. government as much as I despise non-state terror groups throughout the world. (To extend that point, also hypocritically U.S.-government backed terrorist outfits as well [1]). In this context, there is no “sympathy for terrorists.” All forms of terror are condemned, with nobody recieving special privilige or immunity over anybody else. I don’t play favoritism when it comes to the subject of terrorism. Nobody is under mandatory obligation to support the GWOT [2], and even if they were, that is an unacceptable societal and globalized normalization that must be overcome.

A: There is no substantial evidence that FBI entrapment has done anything worthwhile in countering serious terrorist threats to the United States, much less stopping terrorism in general. We have several examples to examine, and you can draw your own conclusions: In the case of Michael Reynolds, the FBI promised $40,000 monetary incentive as a goading motivator to CAUSE a terrorist attack, rather then preventing one. [1] An FBI informant planned to LEAD the “Fort Dix Six” into attacking U.S. military personnel and installations and confessed as much [2]; the FBI sent an informant to infiltrate and MOTIVATE the “Newburgh Four” into attacking synagogues and airplanes [3]. In the words of the Judge regarding the Newburgh Four case, she said, quite admirably: ““[The government] CREATED ACTS OF TERRORISM out of [the defendant’s] fantasies of bravado and bigotry, and then MADE THOSE FANTASIES COME TRUE. The government did not have to infiltrate and foil some nefarious plot – there was NO NEFARIOUS PLOT TO FOIL.” [4] In another peculiar case, the FBI GAVE an unsuspecting man the means to bomb The Pentagon, by equipping him with C4 and a remote controlled plane. [5] The FBI GAVE a fake gun and suicide vest to motivate a terrorist attack in the Capitol, who they later busted, undoubtedly to pat themselves on the back for stopping a plot that they themselves assisted in manifesting into reality. [6] An FBI informant MOTIVATED would-be attackers into targeting a bridge in Cleveland, and assisted in the conspiracy to blow up said bridge. [7] In an outrageous case of attempting to CAUSE TERRORISM, the FBI in ’06 had posed as Al Qaeda members to goad the so-called “Liberty City Seven” into attacking the Sears Tower in Chicago, as well as other buildings. [8] For additional information, I recommend the book “The Terror Factory.” [9] Decide for yourselves, but it seems to me that the FBI doesn’t care for “stopping terror” as much as it cares for fabricating it.

A: Very many. While I haven’t read some of them myself, they are still recommended reading material, especially for anyone who enjoys books.

Devil’s Game by Robert Dreyfuss; Ghost Wars by Steve Coll; A people’s history of the United States by Howard Zinn; Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill; Theorizing Surveillance by David Lyon; Cities Under Siege by Stephen Graham; The Dark Side by Jane Mayer; America’s “War on Terrorism” by Michel Chossudovsky; The Terror Factory by Trevor Aaronson; House of War by James Carroll; Beyond Post-Traumatic Stress by Sarah Hautzinger; The Paradox of Loyalty by Julianne Malveaux; The Guantanamo Files by Andy Worthington; The Globalization of NATO by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya; Cocaine, death squads and the War on Terror by Oliver Villar; Terrorism: The self-fulfilling prophecy by Joseba Zulaika; Counter-terrorism and State political violence by Scott Poynting; States of war since 9/11 by Alex Houen; Terrorism and national liberation by Hans Kochler; Pay any price by James Risen; The Deadly Link by Peter Eyre; War and State terrorism by Mark Selden; Homeland Security Scams by James T. Bennett; Trapped in the War on Terror by Ian Lustick; Useful enemies by David Keen; Endless war? by David Keen; The tyranny of good intentions by Paul Craig Roberts; Shadow lives by Victoria Brittain; Depicting the Veil by Robin Lee Riley.

20. Will urban warfare cease terrorism in the West and throughout the world?

A: Absolutely not, in fact, as pointed out by Stephen Graham in Cities Under Siege (pg 39-40) both terror and so-called ‘counter-terror’ measures such as urban warfare only threaten to reproduce endless violence on inhabitants in urbanite areas throughout the world (not exclusively America). The Bushist legacy of the terror war threatens to destroy both whatever is left of Islamic civilization (not to be confused with political Islam, see Saudi Arabia) and Western civilization simultaenously in a self-flagellating act of producing Samuel Huntington’s ‘clash of civilizations’ global depopulation war doctrine. [1] Stephen Graham: “In many ways, terrorism and counter-terrorism are umbilically connected. So often in the end, tragically, they are self-perpetuating, sustained by their mirror-image imaginative geographies. This is especially so as both the War on Terror and radical Islamism tend to demonize the messy cosmopolitanism of cities, construing them as intrinsically amoral, sinful and unnatural places. It is no wonder that both barbarisms murderously target cities and their inhabitants. Or that both the neocon/Christian and the Islamist fundamentalism share what Zillah Eisenstein terms a ‘masculinist-militarist’ mentality, in which violence is the path to the creative destruction of cities, nations or civilizations. The Manichaean mirrors of the two polarized fundamentalists inevitably produce a duplication and reduplication of violence. What results is a convergence between state terror and non-state terror. The ‘ultimate catastrophe’ of the War on Terror, as Joseph Zulaika points out, ‘is that such a categorically ill-defined, perpetually deferred, simple-minded Good-versus-Evil war echoes and re-creates the very absolutist mentality and exceptionalist tactics of the insurgent terrorists.’ Zulaika further suggests that ‘by formally adopting the terrorists’ own game – one that by definition lacks rules of engagement, definite endings, clear alignments between enemies and friends, or formal arrangements of any sort, military, political, legal, or ethical – the inevitable danger lies in reproducing endlessly.’ The real danger of the War on Terror, then, is that it has closely paralleled Al Qaeda in invoking homogeneous, exclusionary notions of community as a way of legitimatizing massive violence against civilians. The strategies and discourses of both the Bush administration and Al Qaeda – characterized by charged, mutually reinforced dialectics – relied on hyper-masculine notions as (asymmetric) war, invocations of a theological mandate, and absolutist notions of violence, with the goal being to create a fixed, boundless, eternal social order through the ultimate extermination of the enemy. Both have also relied heavily on the use of transnational media to reiterate a rhetoric of good versus evil and a spectacle of victim-hood, demonization, dehumanization, and revenge.” [2]

Sources:
1)Annex II, Israel and Libya: Preparing Africa for the ‘clash of civilizations’ by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya.
*Among the civilization’s listed in Huntington’s model are: African, Hindu, Islamic, Latin American, Japanese, Orthodox, Sinic, and Western. According to his 1996 model, the greatest conflicts come between Western and Islamic, African and Islamic, Hindu and Islamic, and finally Orthodox and Islamic. Clearly, what can be deductively reasoned after examining the behavior of the terror industrial complex is that the Islamic civilization has been provoked, beaten, reorganized, divided and conquered against itself, manipulated, and finally dehumanized to fulfill the fantasies of someone like Ralph Peters in his “Blood Borders” depopulation fantasies. You can can read his 2006 article here: Armed Forces Journal. Conclusively, we find that the urban warfare doctrine, like Full Spectrum Dominance, succeeds only in replicating or increasing terrorism rather than actually stopping it.
2) Cities Under Siege: The New Military Urbanism (2011) by Stephen Graham.

21. What impact does the War on Terror have on immigration?

A: As much as I’d love to note otherwise, the impact has been negative across the board. To quote Antifascist Calling, “In early 2006, Peter Dale Scott uncovered a $385 million open-ended government contract awarded a Halliburton subsidiary, KBR, from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide “temporary detention and processing capabilities.” Scott described how the construction of these facilities are part of a long-term DHS plan titled ENDGAME, whose goal is the “removal” of “all removable aliens” and “potential terrorists.” Is the DHS’ ENDGAME “only” a program for “removing all removable aliens”? Sect. 1042 of the 2007 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), “Use of the Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies,” gives the executive the power to invoke martial law. The Military Commissions Act of 2006, rammed through Congress just before the 2006 midterm elections, allows for the indefinite imprisonment of anyone who donates money to a charity that turns up on a list of “terrorist” organizations, or who speaks out against the government’s policies. In the absence of massive public opposition to existing martial law plans by the Bush regime or future U.S. administrations – Democratic as well as Republican – the prospect of America continuing as a free and open society is a mirage at best.” [1] Operation Endgame sets the precedent that the U.S. government isn’t overly concerned about keeping “foreign” immigrants in or out of The States (making the “immigration debate” a red herring*), but keeping political dissidents in FEMA camps under the watchful eye of a compliant military to the interests of the State. As examined previously in question #13, any form of political, religious, or individualist dissent on the part of an American citizen that isn’t subservient to the will of government policies, deemed “natural” or otherwise, already is categorized on a list of would-be terrorists in government databases. [2] Because of the War on Terror targeting Muslim countries and increasing the number global refugees [3], there has been disproportionate measures of force and racism applied to Muslim communities [4], and instead of “stopping terrorism” or the prevalence of dangerous radicalism, it has led down a road of persecution and desire for vengeance. This desire is then manipulated by the terror industrial complex to manipulate Muslims into carrying out their grievances with the assistance of FBI, CIA, or other government entities. [5] Crucially, what happens because of this is a rise in terrorism – not it’s spontaneous defeat. The impact of the terror war on immigration issues is devastating for anyone that cares to observe.

Sources:
1) Tom Burghardt, Continuity of Government & the “ENDGAME” scenario – April 6, 2008.
*Oxford Dictionary: “A clue or piece of information which is or is intended to be misleading, or is a distraction from the real question.”
**The “debate” whether other human beings should retain the same civil liberties as Americans is a distraction from the problematic issue faced by Operation ENDGAME: Both Americans and “immigrants” are targeted by the U.S. government in so-called “counter-terrorism” measures that has nothing to do with legitimately stopping any serious terror threats domestically in the jurisdiction of the Contiguous states of America. Lower 48 states.
2) The Truth Wins, 72 types of Americans that are considered potential terrorists in gov. documents – August 26, 2013.
3) 2.2 million Afghanistan civilians have been refugees since the “War on Terror” began. (War in Afghanistan-Refugees)
-Since the U.S. occupational authorities made no goal to number or name the victims of the Iraq war, it’s difficult to determine the human cost in refugees, but clearly it’s nothing good. (Iraq war refugees)
-Because of the proxy war in Syria and the creation of ISIS by the terror industrial complex – like Iraq, it’s difficult to gather a proven estimate of casualties. Nonetheless, Wiki records that 6.5 million have fled their home country. (Refugees of the war on Syria)
-After sowing conflict in Somalia, and assisting the rise of Islamic warlords (please see question #15 regarding the Operation Enduring Freedom in the Somali Peninsula), between 2009-2012 its reported that there have been at least 1.4 million refugees. (War in Somalia-Casualties and losses)
-The Terror Industrial Complex creates the “immigration problem” for Australia. North America. and Western Europe, then insists on immigration countermeasures against displaced peoples from their own home countries as “counter-terrorism” solutions.
4) SERCO works for immigration and so-called “security” purposes for world governments. Please watch the following video on SERCO’s racist and sexual abuses on immigrants to Britain: YouTube: SERCO whistle-blower speaks out: Yarl’s Wood sex abuse claims.
-This is just one horrible example of “counter-terrorism” companies, well, terrorizing. Loonwatch observers cases of violence and racism towards Muslim immigrants on their website, I do recommend their website.
5) Question #18 examines cases of FBI goading, arming, and manipulating vulnerable minds to mold into “terrorists” whom they later stop via entrapment. Muslims are no exception to this government ploy. In a damning case from 2006, the FBI have posed as Al Qaeda themselves to cause terrorist incidents. To say nothing of the CIA continuing Brzezinski’s “arc of Islam” strategy. To quote Robert Dreyfuss’ Devil’s Game (pg 240): “Henry Precht, who had been one of the U.S. officials most opposed to the shah and who favored trying to establish good relations with the Islamic Republic, recalls the situation in the middle of 1979: “After the revolution, we still considered Iran to be terribly important to U.S. interests. At one point Hal Saunders [assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs] went to the White House for a meeting, and when he came back he told me, “You’ll be very pleased. We’re going to try to develop new relations with Iran.” There was this idea that the Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets. It was a Brzezinski concept.” I’m convinced the Zbigniew Brzezinski’s strategy didn’t stop at the supposed “end” of the Cold War, it’s continued through the Terror Industrial Complex supporting modern terrorist groups that use the Islamic religion as their banner of choice.

22) What effect does Zionism have on the terror industrial complex?

A: Ideologically speaking, Zionism has already achieved it’s stated goal of having a Jewish state in Palestine. [1] Unless the question is meant to address the post-Zionist (Israel already established) geopolitical environment, answering the relevance to the TIC (terror industrial complex) is a bit of a difficult task. The Yinon Plan [2] may be a factor in the modern War on Terror, but it’s academically a conundrum on whether or not Yinon himself sought out Israel Shahak [3] as his medium for whistle-blowing or if Mr. Shahak fabricated the “Yinon Plan” without consulting Oded himself. It’s not my place to get in the middle of whatever the legality of their professional relationship towards each other may be in the context of this document. Historically speaking, this may or may not led credence to the Yinon Plan document, but it’s significant that Israel (the state) supported and continues to work in parallel with Saudi Arabia and the Muslim Brotherhood in carving out regional neighbors into redrawn borders in the name of it’s own security and sovereignty. [4] Israel’s geopolitical relationship with terrorist groups, in alliance with the U.S. government is consistently examined in question #6, clearing showing that Israel is no less a hypocritical player in the “counter-terrorism” narrative than the U.S. government itself. [5] Whatever your political affiliation or religious adherence, as a question of having a moral compass, both the U.S. and Israeli governments show an astounding double standard and apathy regarding support of terrorists and the goal of allegedly “stopping terror” (George W. Bush’s stated centralized goal for the Global War on Terror) [6] and addressing how “enemy states” support terrorists simultaneously. [7] Just because “they” do it, doesn’t make it right that “we” follow in their footsteps. Benjamin Netanyahu’s “Clean Break: A new strategy for securing the realm” seems to parallel the Yinon Plan, no matter how fictitious or reality-based it may be. [8]

Sources:
1) “Zionism seeks to establish a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law.”-Basel Declaration, First Zionist Congress, 1897.
2) The Zionist plan for the Middle East by Israel Shahak.
3) The accredited translator and editor of the above document.
4) Robert Dreyfuss thoroughly examines this relationship in Devil’s Game. To cite a few examples of my point, I’ll provide the following quotes: “In Afghanistan, Israel quietly supported the jihad against the USSR, backing the Muslim Brotherhood-linked fundamentalists who led the mujahideen.” (pg 206) “Israel was not the only support of Ahmed Yassin and the Muslim Brotherhood. Religious elements in Saudi Arabia, too, wanted to undermine the secular PLO, and wealthy Saudi business leaders helped finance Yassin, although his ability to operate in Gaza depended on the goodwill of the Israeli authorities.” (pg 197) The modern terrorist group Hamas, deplorable as they are, were born of an alliance between Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the MB to curtail Arab secularism during the Cold War. This of course, assisted in the rise of regional Islamic terrorist outfits later on, compliments to Israel and it’s “counter-terror” facade.
5) Mujahideen-e Khalq and Jundullah are notable examples. New Yorker, Our men in Iran, April 5, 2012.
6) “The only way to defeat terrorism as a threat to our way of life is to stop it, eliminate it, and destroy it where it grows. Many will be involved in this effort, from FBI agents to intelligence operatives to the reservists we have called to active duty.” White House, September 20, 2001.
7) Wikipedia, State sponsors of terrorism.
*The foreign governments deemed as such are listed chronologically as: Syria, Libya, Iraq, South Yemen, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. Whether or not you are convinced these governments truly are sponsors of terrorists is entirely up to your own research. In whatever examples that can be convincingly proved for these categorizations, they are also participants in the terror industrial complex (TIC) and deserve equal condemnation for hypocrisy and endangerment to the lives of others. ETTW (end the terror war) is a cause to call out ALL forms of terrorism, state and non-state alike – there are no exceptions.
8) A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm – 2000

23. How was the Muslim Brotherhood started?

A: Hassan Al-Banna is recognized as the founder of the MB. [1] “Hassan al-Banna (1906-1949), learned Islamism from Rashid Rida’s The Lighthouse, and who founded the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt in 1928. Banna begat many offspring. Among them were his son-in-law, Said Ramadan, the Muslim Brotherhood’s international organizer, whose headquarters were in Switzerland, and Abul-Ala Mawdudi, the founder of the Islamic Group in Pakistan, the first Islamist political party, who was inspired by Banna’s work. Banna’s other (ideological) heirs set up branches of the Brotherhood in every Muslim state, in Europe and in the United States. Another of Banna’s offspring, a Saudi who took part in America’s Afghan jihad, was Al Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden, the family’s blackest sheep.” [2] “Banna’s death provided an exclamation point for the end of the first era of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the beginning of another. In the wake of Banna’s death, various factions of the MB competed for control, and the party itself drifted in and out of legality, first banned and then tolerated. The new supreme guide, succeeding Banna, was Hassan Ismail al-Hudaybi, an Egyptian judge whose brother was chief of Farouq’s royal household, and whose appointment was engineered by a wealthy landowner in Egypt. The Brotherhood’s factions would each maintain ties to parts of the Egyptian body politic, keeping lines open to the palace, infiltrating the army and the police, and establishing covert contacts with the burgeoning movement of Free Officers who, in 1952, would seize control of Egypt.” [3]

A: Let’s examine the history of ISIS, and what role it plays in the terror industrial complex.

First, history. ISIS can be traced back to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s Jama’at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (Organization of Monotheism and Jihad). [1] Among the earliest tactics reportedly carried out by the Organization were destruction of embassies, bombings of hotels, mosque bombings, truck bombings, attempted use of chemical weapons, suicide attacks towards oil installations in the Persian Gulf, attacks against churches, attacks against Iraqi National Guard, attempts to destroy border crossings, sectarian violence, beheadings and abductions. After these series of horrendous terrorist attacks against Muslims, Christians, and anyone that won’t bow to their authoritarian Theocratic dictates, the Organized renamed itself into Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn, or Al Qaeda in Iraq/Mesopotamia. [2] AQI, the renewed organized was responsible for kidnapping, beheading, dismemberment, car bombs, attacks on Iraqi tribes who resisted it’s influence, attacks on voters, suicide bombing prisons, attacks on security convoys, execution of ambassadors, marketplace bombing, attacks against unemployed Shiites in Baghdad, mosque attacks, hotel attacks, bombing near shrines, killing of diplomats, torture, taking of Baqubah, actual chemical bombings (chlorine), war on Shia Muslims, contest power with the Anbar Awakening, and forming the Mujahideen Shura Council, renamed itself into the “Islamic State of Iraq”, further attempts at attacking border crossings, attacks on naval vessels, targeting of Israeli city (Eilat), rocket attacks on Israel from Lebanon, killing of tourists in Egypt, ties to Fatah Al-Islam and may have connections to Tawhid and Jihad in Syria as well as Jahafil Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad fi Filastin. (The Armies of Monotheism and Jihad in Palestine) [3] Now, let’s examine the Mujahideen Shura Council (MSC). [4] After it’s disbandment, the TSC became the so-called “Islamic State of Iraq.” The MSC formed an entity called the “Mutayibeen Coalition” showing that the Anbar Awakening had suffered defeats and had since been co-opted by the terrorist group for it’s own purposes of recruitment. The Coalition announced the implementation of Sharia, further attacks on Shiites, kick out the U.S.-NATO occupation (“crusaders”), and to claim violence against anyone who doesn’t accept their brand of “Islam.” The beginnings of the “Islamic State” by a Sunni alliance between the cities of Baghdad, Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salaheddin, Niniveh and parts of Babel and Wasit had been in motion, leading to ISIS as we know it today. Abu Ayyub al-Masri, leader of the MSC sought to rename themselves into ISI (Islamic State of Iraq). Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) [5] is responsible for trying to make a modern-day Caliphate of their own designs, began the formation of it’s own governant “cabinet”, “ministers”, and “supervisors.” This is clearly when the organization transferred from a non-state terrorist outfit into it’s very own terrorist state. ISI has been recorded as responsible for extortion of Iraqi wealth, hijackings, counterfeiting, commanding rations, taking Iraqi ammunition, took oil (Bayji) for the black market, had funding via jihadists in Syria, the hierarchy of AQI/ISI was set that non-Iraqis ruled from the top while Iraqis were bottom-feeders, indicating some sort of nationalist discrimination. (This may or may not be influenced by Zarqawi’s Jordanian identity). They had developed their own bureaucracy, containing governmental records, weapons smuggling from the Syrian border was also one of their operations, they gained a monopoly foothold over Al Anbar province in Iraq. The 2012 withdrawal of U.S. forces allowed ISI to expand it’s fighting forces. AQI held various strongholds throughout Iraq (Fallujah to Qaim and Mosul), using Baqubah as it’s capital city. They are responsible for attempting to assinate the Sunni PM Salam al-Zaubai of al-Maliki’s Iraqi government. Bombing of Iraq’s parliament, further attacks on Iraqi tribes, suspected attacks towards Yazidi, expulsion of Christian Assyrians if they chose not to become adherents to ISI’s version of “Islam”, threatened war against Iran (2007), various Sunni entities held ISI responsible for attacking them (1920 Revolution Brigades, Islamic Army of Iraq, Army of the Mujahideen, Anbar Salvation Council). The 2007 U.S. “surge” was reportedly a response to ISI’s growing violence in Iraq. The 2008 Operation (Phantom Phoenix), under Barack Obama, attempted to survey and hunt down the group. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi assumed leadership of ISI after the deaths of Abu Ayyub al-Masri, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. After the regime change to oust Saddam, many of his former military apparently joined ISI. After obtaining State-status for itself, AQI had apparently expanded like the Muslim Brotherhood, into an international terrorist organization. [6] AQI/ISI sought another name change around 2012-2013, becoming temporarily “Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant”/ISIL. ISIL expanded into Syria, attacking Assad (cui bono?) and recruiting from Syrian prisons. Jabhat al-Nusra was a sub-organization of ISIL in it’s attacks within Syria, and continues to be just that. There was an apparent split between ISIL and Al-Nusrah (Abu Mohammad al-Golani & Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi contested being a merged force or separate) [7], but for all intents and purposes, they are the same entity derived from Zarqawi’s cloth. ISI prodded itself into the business of the Egyptian revolution of 2011, calling for yet another “Islamic government.” On April 2013, ISI renamed itself conclusively into ISIL/ISIS, these are interchangeable terms. [8]

Before looking at ISIS’ role in the terror industrial complex, I would like to mention the fact that on my blog (endtheterrorwar), during April 2014 I made an official denouncement of ISIS and all they stand for. I will reiterate the message here: “Iraqis don’t deserve religious or political terrorism in ANY form. The presence of one occupation (Al Qaeda) isn’t justified, and doesn’t miraculously nullify the actions of the previous one. (U.S.-NATO) Replacing a country under contested control to one that will absolutely be presented with abusive authoritarians (extremist Sharia adherents) is unjustifiable. No amount of emotional, physical, or intellectual blackmail is respectful. (Claiming the wrong military actions taken against civilians in Fallujah by the previous occupiers somehow resolves the present situation is unconscionable, because it doesn’t). I sincerely doubt the “Islamic state” was born non-violently, any number of so-called “infidels” may have been abused into compliance or killed until its authority was solidified. You want Iraq to be in better conditions? Fine, good. None of the above is any way to go about making that happen. I have no sympathy for willful geopolitical tools or sympathizers of abusive Islamists towards any community. Replacing one abusive power for another is hardly a revolutionary or welcoming societal change for any community in the region, if anything, it’s just another wrong and two wrongs don’t make a right. I object to these obscene suggestive implications by Tumblr user “abu-macintosh” in their recent post about the situation in Fallujah currently. It’s hypocritical of them to denounce the evils of one, while cheering for a different form of evil of another. Just because a centralized authority has named itself doesn’t guarantee peace for Iraq (or anywhere else). Violently-imposed “order,” most certainly, but never peace.” [9] ETTW (End The Terror War) has consistently condemned Zarqawi and his ever-evolving organization, and that fact will never change.

Secondly, let’s see what role ISIS plays in the terror industrial complex. They appear to qualify as “irregulars” of some sort [10], complying with doctrines to subvert Syrians into their own governance while attempting to assist in the regime change of Assad’s Syria. [11] This curiously plays right into Netanyahu’s “Clean Break” doctrine, which fails to address the issue of terrorists [12], please see question #22 regarding Israel’s role in the TIC. Tony Cartalucci’s Land Destroyer blog provides some intriguing perspective on the role of ISIS, amongst his many quality articles regarding this subject are: “U.S. in Iraq: Geopolitical Arsonists Seek to Burn Region” [13], ‘ISIS a pretext for US-sponsored regime change in Iraq’ [14], and ‘ISIS: Region-wide Genocide Portended in 2007 Now Fully Realized’. [15] Finally, I would say ISIS, wittingly or unwillingly, is playing right into the hands of Ralph Peter’s “Blood Borders” [16] and the CENTCOM monopoly over all Middle Eastern governments via Full Spectrum Dominance. This is also aligned with the so-called “birth pangs of a New Middle East” mentioned by Condolezza Rice following the disputed assassination of a Lebanese politican, conveniently pinned on Syria, that may or may not have been a false flag. [17] Unconventional warfare permits ISIS to act as proxies, where intelligence operatives and other U.S. armed forces personnel can take a back seat (covert operations) while Zarqawi’s terrorist organization does their work for them: depopulation, forcibly redrawn borders, targeting America’s designated enemy states – notably neighboring Iran and Syria. For further analysis on the Hairiri assassination, I recommend the following article: “The Hariri Assassination: Israel’s Fingerprints.” [18]

A: Operation Active Endeavor was activated by the U.S.-NATO alliance on Oct 4, 2001. [1] We mustn’t ignore full spectrum dominance (please see question #16 for additional info). As the starting Operation following 9/11, this has implicated countries nearby the Mediterranean Strait of Gibraltar. 21 countries in all border the Mediterranean, implicating them for invasions, false flags, or other dirty warfare tactics – that includes states deemed as “Allies.” [2] Next, Operation Enduring Freedom – Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001. [3] Neighboring countries were egged on by the Bush administration to join in the fight to topple the Taliban and their questionable allegiance with Al Qaeda. Among these were: (1) Uzbekistan, (2) Turkmenistan, (3) Tajikistan, (4) Iran via the now-defunct Northern Alliance, and lastly (5) Pakistan and (6) India. [4] Ironically, the NA was drastically opposed to the Taliban and Al Qaeda, but Washington saw them as competition rather than a productive partner to legitimately counter terrorists in the region. So within a 4-day separation period (Oct 4-7) between Active Endeavor & Enduring Freedom – Afghanistan, up to TWENTY-SEVEN COUNTRIES have either been invaded, co-opted, or compliant. And that’s just the start! It gets much worse. In January 2002, Operation Freedom Eagle/Enduring Freedom – Phillipines began. [5] As a Pacific Ocean country, the counterterror operations done within the isles of the Phillipines can have drastic affects on it’s southern and western neighbors: (1) Indonesia, (2) East Malaysia, (3) Singapore, (4) East Timor, (5) Brunei, (6) Christmas Island, (7) Cambodia, (8) Laos, (9) Myanmar/Burma, (10) Thailand, (11) West Malaysia, and (12) Vietnam. [6] All Southeast Asian countries are implicated by the Terror Industrial Complex. Totaling the number of countries again, we come to FORTY COUNTRIES (including the Phillipines themselves). Next in line is Enduring Freedom – Horn of Africa, begun on October 2, 2001. [7] Although it’s titled “Horn of Africa”, it has military operations within Central African states as well. Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa (CJTF-HOA) bears the following countries under it’s umbrella: (1) Sudan, (2) Somalia, (3) Djibouti, (4) Ethiopia, (5) Eritrea, (6) Seychelles, (7) Kenya, (8) Mauritius, (9) Comoros, (10) Liberia, (11) Rwanda, (12) Uganda and (13) Tanzania. That brings us up to FIFTY THREE COUNTRIES. Next we will examine Enduring Freedom – Trans Sahara (OEF-TS). [8] The following countries are implicated: (1) Algeria, (2) Chad, (3) Mali, (4) Mauritania, (5) Niger, (6) Senegal, (7) Nigeria, and (8) Morocco. That’s SIXTY ONE COUNTRIES. Then there’s the war on Iraq, which implicated Syria with a refugee crisis and Kurdistan to fight it’s battle of independence. Relations with Iran and Turkey tensed up, and Zarqawi’s offspring by ideology – ISIS – came among. Discounting ISIS as a “victim” to U.S. invasions, rather than a creation of U.S. foreign policy, FIVE COUNTRIES were severely damaged by the Iraq war including Iraq itself. Yemen and Kashmir are hot spots as well, knocking the number up to SIXTY EIGHT COUNTRIES. When we apply the Bush “with us or against us” [10] ultimatum to the standards of the above question, no countries are considered genuine Allies and any could be falsely accused of harboring terrorists that the U.S. government wants to go after. Because of the convergence of the War on Terror with the War on Drugs, even all of South America is implicated, which also damages the rest of the Western Hemisphere. [11] It’s much more difficult to count what countries HAVEN’T been invaded, coerced to play along, or worse. Practically speaking, the whole world has been invaded by the U.S. government, and redefining North America as yet another “battlefield” and American civilians as “suspected terrorists” completes the whole globalization of ‘terroristization’ of populations across the whole planet. [12] I don’t know about anybody else, but this “War on Terror” looks like a depopulationist racket, and people across the planet have fallen for it at their own peril.

A: According to Bush’s 9/20/01 speech: “It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.” [1] However, since the War on Terror began terrorism has been on the rise [2], and a vast array of groups having nothing to do affiliations to Islamic terrorism, much less Al Qaeda specifically are also deemed terrorist groups [3], this entraps humanity in an indefinite war. To make things much worse, Greenwald reports that senior Obama officials will extend the War on Terror several more decades. [3] He makes a case for what it may take to put this indefinite war on standstill, if not stopping permanently altogether: “This war will end only once Americans realize the vast and multi-faceted costs they are bearing so that the nation’s political elites can be empowered and its oligarchs can further prosper. But Washington clearly has no fear that such realizations are imminent. They are moving in the other direction: aggressively planning how to further entrench and expand this war.” The notion that the U.S. President is granted authority to kill anybody, WITHOUT charges against them, or WITHOUT review, and certainly WITHOUT due process in court proceedings, tells us all we need to know about the dangers of being an ‘accused terrorist’ in America today. [5] It’s a frightening prospect that has nothing to do with public safety or the well-being of the nation, just the dictatorial whims of the chief executive. The War on Terror, and the Terror Industrial Complex, end when active military protest terrorizing others (foreign and domestic), when intelligence agencies stop goading genuine terrorist groups into action [6], when agencies like the FBI stop creating their own stupid terror plots to eventually foil later for public consumption [7], when everybody across the world declares that they’ve had enough of this nonsense. Because I seriously doubt we’ll see the day when a U.S. President announces the end of the GWOT any time soon in a public address and legislative repealment of all anti-civil liberties so-called ‘counterterror’ laws. People have got to fight for it themselves, because Washington is an apathetic, reckless, den of vipers that couldn’t care less about the average Americans suffering. Either everyone joins hands across the planet to end it, that includes resistance to terrorists themselves [8], or it will end us – let’s NOT allow that to happen. Ending the War on Terror also means resisting terrorists themselves [9], there is no favoritism between state and non-state terror. Retaliation against terrorists can still exist, without the “War on Terror” and all the horrible things tied to it’s legacy of death and destruction without limits. The War on Terror ends when combatants (state and non-state actors) stop fighting each other, and people stop endorsing it across the world.